We
are writing to express our grave concerns regarding CRC
Proposal 22, Declaration of Rights, Right of Privacy,
which would amend the constitutional right of privacy
found in Article I, s. 23, Fla. Con., to limit privacy
rights to "privacy of information and the disclosure
thereof."

While we are certainly concerned about the broader
implications of such a severe constraint on privacy
rights for all Floridians, the First Amendment
Foundation is most alarmed by the dramatic impact this
proposal would have on the constitutional right of
access to public records.

The last line of the privacy provision states that
the right of privacy "shall not be construed to limit
the public's right of access to public records and
meetings as provided by law." (emphasis added)

This language currently allows the Legislature to
create exemptions from public disclosure requirements.
If CRC Proposal 22 is adopted, legislative powers would
be broadly expanded, and the Legislature could "provide
by law" that certain "private" information is not public
record. This would give the Legislature the power to
selectively pull existing public records from the public
domain.

Equally troubling is the potential for the courts to
hold that certain information is "private" pursuant to
the revised privacy right and thus not subject to
disclosure under Florida's public records law.

Under the current constitutional and statutory
scheme, only the Legislature can create exemptions to
the right of access guaranteed under Article 1, s. 24,
Fla. Con. And although the FAF doesn't always agree with
some of the proposed public record exemptions, we
believe the Legislature has done a very good job in
protecting sensitive and personal information.
Currently, there are scores of exemptions protecting
medical information, social security numbers, personal
financial information, and even home addresses when
warranted.

Given the large number of such exemptions and the
authority of the Legislature to create new exemptions to
protect sensitive personal information, the exact
purpose of Proposal 22 isn't clear - other than to allow
sweeping revisions of existing disclosure laws.

If the proposed amendment passed, would public
officials no longer be required to disclose personal
financial information? Would text messages sent by a
city manager on his personal cell phone to a lobbyist
asking for expensive football tickets be considered
"private" and thus not subject to disclosure under the
public records law? Would applications for public
employment or criminal history records fall under the
privacy provision? Would lobbyists no longer have to
disclose the identity of clients and gross compensation?

Given the alarming ambiguity of the phrase "privacy
of information," as well as the Legislature's existing
constitutional authority to create exemptions to protect
sensitive personal information, we strongly encourage
your committee to vote no on this unneeded change to the
strong privacy provision in Florida's Constitution.